The way I hear it, and I do believe I hear it correctly, is that whole life was a life insurance product developed in the 1970s. Later, in the 1990s, some great minds got together and said, "Let's make whole life insurance more flexible and also allow some options in universal life to credit consumers with a potential higher rate of return on their sub-accounts than what whole life can pay".

The way it was told to me is that one of the flexibilities of universal life is that you can pay for, say, 10 or 15 years and then you may not need to pay anymore. But with whole life, you have to pay for your whole life.

So, the way I hear it is that whole life agents are like guys who walk down the street in 1970s pimp gear, complete with bell bottoms and flower patches on their butts, while universal life agents have successfully adapted to "a better kind of policy" and moved into modern times with hybrid cars, DVDs, HDTV, the Internet and other modern faculties.

So, is it true that whole life agents are simply uninformed agents who are stuck in the 70s with an outdated, non-flexible product?

The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily those of ProducersWEB.

Reprinting or reposting this article without prior consent of Producersweb.com is strictly prohibited.
If you have questions, please visit our terms and conditions

About the Author

Instead of just telling you about me. I think you might understand who I am by knowing how I think. Here's a recent post that may tell you a little bit more about me... The Olympics fires me up!!!! The competition. The passion for excellence. Could you imagine if people played the game of LIFE... More